TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that:- As borrowed money utilised for such investment and therefore, no interest was paid by the assessee. This position was not contradicted by the Ld. DR. Ground No. 3 is dismissed. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 6615/DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2018 - SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Naina Soin Kabil, SR. DR For The Respondent : Sh. G. S. Kohli, Adv ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 25/09/2014 passed by CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grounds for appeal are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resh notices u/s 143(2) dated 22.11.2013 of the I T. Act, 1961, was issued served upon the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) of the I T. Act along-with a detailed questionnaire dated 26.12.2013 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, Chartered Accountant and Authorized Representative of the assessee Company attended the proceedings from time to time and furnish the requisite details/information, books of accounts which was examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee claim mark to market loss on derivative instrument amounting to ₹ 5,03,94,885/-. The assessee was asked to show cause as to why the same should not be disallowed as actual sale or settlement did not took place. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowed. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the loss was actual component loss and the profit has been accepted by the Assessing Officer and only loss has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer which is not permissible under the Act. As regards Ground No.3, the Ld. AR submitted that there were no expenses as there was a loss in the assessee s case. Therefore, the Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As regards Ground No.1 2, the CIT(A) held as under:- I have considered the observations/contentions given by the learned A.O. in respect of disallowance of mark to market loss and the written submission of the learned A.R. where he also placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 JM Financial Services Ltd. 3,34,02,409 2,66,07,739 TOTAL 26,84,87,195 21,80,92,312 Turnover of Derivative Business = Rs. (21,80,92,312 + Rs. 26,84,87,195) = ₹ 48,65,79,507/-. Net Loss of Derivative Business u/s 43(5)(d) = ₹ 5,03,94,883/-. Therefore, the AR should give tax audit report u/s 44AB in future, as business T.O. exceeds more than 60 lakhs. As all figures are computer generated, screen bases and time stamped, no deep audit is requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. and invested ₹ 53,06,88,553/- in investment during current year. Hence there is no interest paid on such loan. The AR vehemently argued that no disallowance u/s 14A be made in this case. The audited accounts placed on the record also does not reveals any expenses of interest which may create suspicion that the investment were made by raising the funds. Further keeping in view the nature of activities carried out by the appellant-company also gives the relief as held by ITAT Mumbai decision quoted by the A.O. (312 ITR 1TR (AT), (irrespective of the fact that it is referred by learned A.O) Thus in these circumstances I agree with the learned AR that action of the A.O. was not justified, thus the disallowance of ₹ 13,26, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
